Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, on the surface the lower cost of BRT looks compelling, but there's more of a danger that the local politicians reroute it, degrade the service (to save money, serve their constituents better at the cost of others, and so on), or take it away. Stops (both in number and location) are arbitrary rather than set. Ditto routes -- heck, one of the ones I used to use fairly often personally no longer exists. With rail you have more permanence which encourages investment by homeowners and developers to build up and improve the neighborhood. The commitment that laying down tracks represents is more synergistic with the private market.
An argument put to rest about two decades ago. But then fanatics rarely were a fan of dealing in reality.
You bring up an interesting alternative metric of development per dollar, which when and where funds to invest are more of a limit than ideal locations to do it would actually be a better way of looking at it. That could easily end up favoring BRT, although rights of way are scarcer than cash in the already heavily built up areas I've lived.
You are also correct I'm basing this off my own lived experience, readings to date, and past conversations with real-estate investors rather than good hard data -- I could be convinced otherwise pretty easily if some is available, but unless I missed something all I saw through the link were a couple anecdotes that still leave me unconvinced.
You bring up an interesting alternative metric of development per dollar, which when and where funds to invest are more of a limit than ideal locations to do it would actually be a better way of looking at it. That could easily end up favoring BRT, although rights of way are scarcer than cash in the already heavily built up areas I've lived.
You are also correct I'm basing this off my own lived experience, readings to date, and past conversations with real-estate investors rather than good hard data -- I could be convinced otherwise pretty easily if some is available, but unless I missed something all I saw through the link were a couple anecdotes that still leave me unconvinced.
Uh, you realize I just put data in front of your nose, right? I can't force you to look at it if you don't want to.
There are currently no cases in the US where LRT should be
favored over BRT.
Also, they state a maximum of 35k PPHPD for BRT, given certain caveats. That's so impressive it is almost unbelievable. If true, it certainly eats away at the LRT proposition. That said, LRT could also increase capacity through passing tracks at stations.
Also, they state a maximum of 35k PPHPD for BRT, given certain caveats. That's so impressive it is almost unbelievable. If true, it certainly eats away at the LRT proposition. That said, LRT could also increase capacity through passing tracks at stations.
Personally I think most cities should be doing one or the other or both in their city. If BRT works for a city, then by all means build a BRT system, especially if it is more cost effective and can produce the ridership numbers.
I am personally a fan of LRT, but not every city can put up the initial cost of LRT.
Also, they state a maximum of 35k PPHPD for BRT, given certain caveats. That's so impressive it is almost unbelievable. If true, it certainly eats away at the LRT proposition. That said, LRT could also increase capacity through passing tracks at stations.
I know. For the uninformed, facts often are unbelievable. Like the fact that BRT has an actual pphpd of ~41,000. Actual. Not the hypothetical numbers some of the rail junkies like to throw around in these neck of the woods.
There's nothing particularly strong about the statement. Where light rail can stand on its merits, great. It just shouldn't be favored because of false impressions from the too-good-to-ride-a-bus crowd about how rail has any special factors like an ability to carry more than a few hundred passengers per hour, ability to spur development. It doesn't. Those are normal factors.
I know. For the uninformed, facts often are unbelievable. Like the fact that BRT has an actual pphpd of ~41,000. Actual. Not the hypothetical numbers some of the rail junkies like to throw around in these neck of the woods.
Good to see you supporting a public transportation system. BRT would be great in many American cities.
Always have been.
I just call things like they are. Much of what we have is dumb public transportation that has no reason to exist, which is why the private car is more energy efficient than most public transportation in this country. That's disgraceful, especially since we don't even drive fuel efficient cars to begin with. I've always been a proponent of transportation that make sense. One of my biggest criticism of dumb transit is it makes TOD impossible. No one is going to build around a public transportation system that is uniformly awful everywhere versus one that offers good service in a subset of the urbanized area.
I know. For the uninformed, facts often are unbelievable. Like the fact that BRT has an actual pphpd of ~41,000. Actual. Not the hypothetical numbers some of the rail junkies like to throw around in these neck of the woods.
There's not really that much difference functionally between a completely grade separated busway and light rail, but most BRT isn't that. And at the cost of a completely grade separated busway, you're approaching light rail costs.
Quote:
There's nothing particularly strong about the statement. Where light rail can stand on its merits, great. It just shouldn't be favored because of false impressions from the too-good-to-ride-a-bus crowd about how rail has any special factors like an ability to carry more than a few hundred passengers per hour, ability to spur development. It doesn't. Those are normal factors.
Except the quote was that nowhere in the US can light rail stand on its merits, that's a rather strong statement. And I can think of a few obvious counterexamples.
One: Green Line extension to Somerville (near Boston). There's already a right of way and an existing underground light rail tunnel going downtown (similar to the MUNI Market Street tunnel in San Francisco). Light rail fits better with existing transit than buses. Perhaps they were referring to completely new systems, however
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
